I'm obviously a little bias because I have been high on Nick Perry since he was drafted, but I think his development could have a lot to do with the Packers defensive success in the future, regardless of 3-4 or 4-3 schemes. I read an article that said the Packers have to get bigger, stronger, more physical, and faster on defense. Perry is all of those things. His technique isn't refined, especially as a 3-4 OLB, but the guy is a physical freak in terms of the combination of strength and speed. I have no doubt that's why Ted Thompson drafted him due to his athleticism and trusted Perry and the coaching staff for his development. He is just the kind of player the defense needs more of. He may never develop and may be a bust pick, but from a pure size, strength, and speed standpoint, the guy has it all. His development will have a lot to do with the progress of the Packers defense. I think he would very quickly be an impact player as a 4-3 defensive end.

To that point, I've been thinking the Packers current personnel on defense is much better suited to a traditional 4-3 scheme, anyway. Most of our defensive tackles are likely better suited and have played in a 4-3 style in college: BJ Raji, Worthy, Daniels, etc. Defensive ends like Mike Neal would still make solid depth in a 4-3, but can also move inside to DT on passing downs. Pickett would still be a beast next to Raji as the two DT's in the base defense. Nick Perry is likely better suited as a pass rushing defensive end, regardless if he can make the transition to OLB, or not. Clay Mathews, of course, would be the one wildcard. It's obvious he can still rush the passer as a hybrid type of defensive end, but it would be interesting to see how they would use him in the base defense. Dallas is changing to a traditional 4-3 Tampa 2 defense this season, despite having two great OLB's. It will be interesting to see how they utilize Ware.

Additionally, I don't think we have any great 3-4 MLB's. Bishop could certainly qualify, but that's about it. At the same time, he would still be a solid 4-3 MLB, although his same deficiencies would still be there. Scheme can only cover up so much. Hawk can be a decent Will or Sam OLB as he has in the past, and the combination of Brad Jones and DJ Smith make for great depth and/or replacement starters. There are many who have argued Hawk isn't a 3-4 ILB from the beginning, and they are probably correct.

I personally really like the 3-4, and would like to see it stick around in Green Bay. I think it can offer the most flexibility for a very creative coach with the proper amount of talent. However, Green Bay doesn't seem to have that talent currently. Also, a lot of the recent players that have been brought it are arguably better fits for the traditional 4-3 style, so I can't help but wonder if there's been some thought about transitioning to a 4-3 in the near future. Of course, those players could have simply been the best available, so who knows. It's interesting to think about, though, because this defense might be much more suited for a hybrid 4-3 style of defense, perhaps like the Patriots are running, rather than Dom Capers aggressive 3-4. A bright young 4-3 coach might be able to turn this defense around very quick, given the personnel. Who knows.

Green Bay - Inside Green Bay Packers headquarters Sunday, the defense was nowhere to be found, just like the night before in a 45-31 divisional playoff loss to the San Francisco 49ers.

As the offense, special teams and injured players made their final locker room appearance in front of reporters Sunday, defensive players were conspicuous by their absence. Not a single starter was around to assess the future of a unit that for the third time in four years failed the team in the playoffs.

Maybe it was appropriate that the whereabouts of roughly half the team was uncertain because so is its future. When the Packers convene for organized team activities after the April draft, a whole bunch of introductions might be in order.

The task in front of general manager Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy following the 579-yard beating the Packers' defense took Saturday night is to figure out whether they can go forward with the same coaches and same personnel philosophy.

Under defensive coordinator Dom Capers the past four seasons, the defense has at times been unable to stop the run, unable to communicate consistently in the secondary and unable to stand up to hot quarterbacks. Its saving grace other times has been creating turnovers and getting sacks, but too often the season has ended on a disappointing note.

As the week goes on, McCarthy is going to have to decide whether Capers has lost his touch and no longer has the ability to keep up with the NFL's increasingly diverse offensive attacks or is a victim of Thompson's draft-only philosophy and neglect in acquiring the bruising linebackers and safeties it takes to compete with the physical offenses of NFC contenders San Francisco and the New York Giants.

As players are wont to do, the Packers defend Capers and his staff to reporters, refusing publicly to turn on the same guys who helped them win Super Bowl rings. But it was also clear after the loss what players were speaking of when they said they were out-schemed and underprepared against 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick and the read-option plays he used en route to breaking the NFL record for quarterback rushing yards with 181.

"Coach Capers is a great coach," said linebacker Desmond Bishop, who spent the season on injured reserve. "You can't have a great defense and win the Super Bowl one year and then be kicked out the next year, or a year or two later. I don't think it should work like that at all.

"I think Dom Capers is a great coach. It's just something I think we have to look at internally as a team and not really worry about going outside of the team. It's something we have to look at within ourselves. I think we will address that and be fine."

Should he decide to part ways with Capers, McCarthy wouldn't necessarily have to scrap the Steelers 3-4 system the Packers are currently using. Defensive line coach Mike Trgovac and safeties coach Darren Perry would be options if McCarthy chose to promote from within and keep the same system.

There are plenty of 3-4 practitioners so it wouldn't necessarily mean McCarthy would have to start from scratch on defense if he hired from somewhere else. The Packers have invested a lot into 3-4-type players and McCarthy likes the attacking style of that scheme.

But before McCarthy decides a coaching change is necessary, Thompson needs to examine his philosophy for stocking the roster with talent. Thompson devoted his first six draft choices last spring to defensive players, but did not sign a veteran free agent and made Capers and his staff make do this season with a bunch of rookies.

It's hard to have a successful defense when the roster is continually turning over and isn't allowed to mature. Whether that has been the case with the Packers is up for debate.

First-round pick Nick Perry was more in the Bishop style of physical player but was tentative in his transition from college end to pro outside linebacker and was lost for the season halfway through with a wrist injury. Rookie inside linebacker Terrell Manning might be able to add some pop to the lineup next year, but after battling a training camp illness the best he could do was contribute on special teams.

Safety Jerron McMillian, another physical type played like a rookie and the jury is still out on his future. His height will always be an issue. Cornerback Davon House looked like he might add some muscle to the defense, but he dislocated his shoulder in training camp and was not the same the rest of the season.

The combination of Ryan Pickett and B.J. Raji has been solid in the middle, but when C.J. Wilson got hurt Capers had no one who could serve as the third run-stuffer in his base defense. Mike Neal, Jerel Worthy and Daniels were poor substitutes for the double-team-eating ends necessary to stop the run in the 3-4 defense.

As safety Charles Woodson said after the loss to the 49ers, "Maybe we have to get bigger and faster."

It will be up to Thompson to decide whether to go on with Hawk and his $5.45 million salary cap number or use a top pick to find a complement to Bishop, who is coming off a torn hamstring and has a lot of hurdles to clear before proving he's the player he once was.

Thompson also probably will part ways with Woodson, who with a $10 million salary cap number is way too expensive to keep around for a 14-year veteran that has suffered two broken collarbones.

Thompson is not one open to change, but he did commit to rebuilding the defense last spring with the six draft picks and he might need to break his resistance to free agency to turn this defense around. Salary cap space would be available if he dumps Hawk and Woodson.

As for the rest of the roster, receivers Donald Driver and Greg Jennings are all but gone, which will mean salary cap money can be spent elsewhere. Tight end Jermichael Finley came around enough at the end that his $8.25 million cap number is worth carrying, but decisions have to be made on whether to keep running backs James Starks ($1.3 million) and John Kuhn ($1.9 million).

There will be change around 1265 Lombardi Ave. How much is a question only Thompson and McCarthy can answer.

This article pretty sums up my feelings on the subject. Ted Thompson has focused more on "finesse" type players and this has hurt us. Yes turnovers look good, but I'd give up being among the league leaders in turnovers if it meant we would get some bruisers who could stand up to the elite offenses we traditionally struggle against.

This article pretty sums up my feelings on the subject. Ted Thompson has focused more on "finesse" type players and this has hurt us. Yes turnovers look good, but I'd give up being among the league leaders in turnovers if it meant we would get some bruisers who could stand up to the elite offenses we traditionally struggle against.

I Like the article. One of my worries about this team is whether we have to enter rebuilding mode. Maybe we just completed our rebuilding year because of all the injuries.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool - R. Feynman

I Like the article. One of my worries about this team is whether we have to enter rebuilding mode. Maybe we just completed our rebuilding year because of all the injuries.

The Packers aren't in rebuilding mode, necessarily. A lot depends on the 2012 draft class and the six defensive players that were drafted. How Perry, Worthy, Hayward, McMillan, Daniels, and Manning develop will have a lot to do with the success of this defense for the next 2-3 seasons. Guys like House and Neal will also factor in, as they both need to continue to improve, but have shown flashed. At this point, I think the Packers pretty much know what they're going to get out of Raji, Burnett, Williams, Shields, Hawk, Pickett, Wilson, Woodson, etc. Naturally, if the 2012 draft class flops, it could be a rough few years. I'm not that worried about the offense. Yeah, it might not be able to ever reach the level of 2011 again, but that doesn't mean they won't be good enough to compete in every game, even with losing Jennings and/or Finley. They just need the defense to help pick up some of the slack, imo.

I'm obviously a little bias because I have been high on Nick Perry since he was drafted, but I think his development could have a lot to do with the Packers defensive success in the future, regardless of 3-4 or 4-3 schemes. I read an article that said the Packers have to get bigger, stronger, more physical, and faster on defense. Perry is all of those things. His technique isn't refined, especially as a 3-4 OLB, but the guy is a physical freak in terms of the combination of strength and speed. I have no doubt that's why Ted Thompson drafted him due to his athleticism and trusted Perry and the coaching staff for his development. He is just the kind of player the defense needs more of. He may never develop and may be a bust pick, but from a pure size, strength, and speed standpoint, the guy has it all. His development will have a lot to do with the progress of the Packers defense. I think he would very quickly be an impact player as a 4-3 defensive end.

To that point, I've been thinking the Packers current personnel on defense is much better suited to a traditional 4-3 scheme, anyway. Most of our defensive tackles are likely better suited and have played in a 4-3 style in college: BJ Raji, Worthy, Daniels, etc. Defensive ends like Mike Neal would still make solid depth in a 4-3, but can also move inside to DT on passing downs. Pickett would still be a beast next to Raji as the two DT's in the base defense. Nick Perry is likely better suited as a pass rushing defensive end, regardless if he can make the transition to OLB, or not. Clay Mathews, of course, would be the one wildcard. It's obvious he can still rush the passer as a hybrid type of defensive end, but it would be interesting to see how they would use him in the base defense. Dallas is changing to a traditional 4-3 Tampa 2 defense this season, despite having two great OLB's. It will be interesting to see how they utilize Ware.

Additionally, I don't think we have any great 3-4 MLB's. Bishop could certainly qualify, but that's about it. At the same time, he would still be a solid 4-3 MLB, although his same deficiencies would still be there. Scheme can only cover up so much. Hawk can be a decent Will or Sam OLB as he has in the past, and the combination of Brad Jones and DJ Smith make for great depth and/or replacement starters. There are many who have argued Hawk isn't a 3-4 ILB from the beginning, and they are probably correct.

I personally really like the 3-4, and would like to see it stick around in Green Bay. I think it can offer the most flexibility for a very creative coach with the proper amount of talent. However, Green Bay doesn't seem to have that talent currently. Also, a lot of the recent players that have been brought it are arguably better fits for the traditional 4-3 style, so I can't help but wonder if there's been some thought about transitioning to a 4-3 in the near future. Of course, those players could have simply been the best available, so who knows. It's interesting to think about, though, because this defense might be much more suited for a hybrid 4-3 style of defense, perhaps like the Patriots are running, rather than Dom Capers aggressive 3-4. A bright young 4-3 coach might be able to turn this defense around very quick, given the personnel. Who knows.

So our big,strong guys on our defense now is Bishop, Raji, Picket, Perry, Matthews and Woodson. Respectfully at their positions of course. Maybe we could weed some of the smaller guys out that aren't productive?

Like Hawk, we could probably easily replace him in this draft, free agency or on our team. I could see them letting him go like a lot of you. I like Jones potential too, and he's big, strong, and fast. Just starting out at the MLB position. I bet he'll be a lot better next year. I wouldn't mind seeing him play beside Bishop. Maybe even provide a complex scheme to the will or mike linebacker if we decide to go with another D-coach. Our secondarys excellent but they have problems tackling. The weak links are Willams and Burnett. Burnett can tackle, He's just really inconsistent at it. Tramon looks like he has trouble shedding blocks. Maybe bring in some taller, more physical guys in the mix. Most of our Corners right now are 5'11 or lower.

All in all I agree we need a BIG front 7 no matter the scheme, and we're track with that Perry pick. We just took some production over product with Dainels and Mcmillian in the draft. Even though they have been decent you can't just rely on doing that again.

Aaron has peaked, sad for me to say,Alex smith was leading stats and got pulled for is guy, you can see why,Kaepernick is the future and it is now.

This happened to Farve too.

Favre's only 100+ QB rating season was 2009 with the vikes. With the Packers, he had 5 years in the 70s and 5 years with 20+ INTs. In his best year, he threw 39 TDs and 13 INTs (1996). In his worst year, he threw 24 picks with only 19 TDs.

Rodgers has had one sub-100 season (his first year, 93.8) and in his worst year, threw 13 picks with 28 TDs. In his best year (last year), he threw for 45 TDs and 6 INTs.

This year, he "dropped off" to 39 TDs and 8 INTs, a QB rating of 108, 4295 yards and a 67.2 completion percentage behind a swiss cheese offensive line.

I have absolutely no idea how anybody that's watched football for more than 5 years could start talking about Aaron "peaking", and then start talking about how Alex smith was pulled for someone better and then bring up Favre. I don't know if it was your intention to criticize Rodgers but it sounded that way and out of everybody on this team, I think there's probably only 3 people you could criticize less (Cobb, Jones, Matthews). And I don't think you realize just how incredibly blessed we are.

Favre's only 100+ QB rating season was 2009 with the vikes. With the Packers, he had 5 years in the 70s and 5 years with 20+ INTs. In his best year, he threw 39 TDs and 13 INTs (1996). In his worst year, he threw 24 picks with only 19 TDs.

Rodgers has had one sub-100 season (his first year, 93.8) and in his worst year, threw 13 picks with 28 TDs. In his best year (last year), he threw for 45 TDs and 6 INTs.

This year, he "dropped off" to 39 TDs and 8 INTs, a QB rating of 108, 4295 yards and a 67.2 completion percentage behind a swiss cheese offensive line.

I have absolutely no idea how anybody that's watched football for more than 5 years could start talking about Aaron "peaking", and then start talking about how Alex smith was pulled for someone better and then bring up Favre. I don't know if it was your intention to criticize Rodgers but it sounded that way and out of everybody on this team, I think there's probably only 3 people you could criticize less (Cobb, Jones, Matthews). And I don't think you realize just how incredibly blessed we are.

Let me rephrase since people seem to let their sensitivities overrule what was said.

This was absolutely NOT a criticism on Rodgers. He is the best he can be. He is AT his peak and is as good as a traditional QB can get. He was the primary reason the packers were even competing in that game. THAT is what I said and nothing else.

what I was explaining, was that in the midst of being blessed with having the best traditional QB in the league, we are also witnessing an evolution of the QB position right before our eyes.

Kaepernick, RG3 and Wilson are ushering in a new QB style that has no answer at this point. This is NOT the wildcat and its NOT a fad. It's not going away and traditionalist are not going to like it. All of the NFL alum and analysts all say so as well.

Teams are going to have to change with the times or get left behind. To compete with the new type of QB, teams need super althletic defenses to catch them. Only the niners and Seahawks presently have that.

What I said was, as good as Aaron is, he will need more dynamic players around him to compete with teams like Seatttle and San Francisco. Aaron's not going to run any faster and transform into a running QB, and Green Bay deosnt need him to be. But he does need help.

The landscape of the NFL has changed in 2 seasons since the Super Bowl. We have to evolve with it.Be a traditionalist, and we will be one and out of the playoffs for a long time and not sniff the Super Bowl.That's where we are all disagreeing,

Let me rephrase since people seem to let their sensitivities overrule what was said.

This was absolutely NOT a criticism on Rodgers. He is the best he can be. He is AT his peak and is as good as a traditional QB can get. He was the primary reason the packers were even competing in that game. THAT is what I said and nothing else.

what I was explaining, was that in the midst of being blessed with having the best traditional QB in the league, we are also witnessing an evolution of the QB position right before our eyes.

Kaepernick, RG3 and Wilson are ushering in a new QB style that has no answer at this point. This is NOT the wildcat and its NOT a fad. It's not going away and traditionalist are not going to like it. All of the NFL alum and analysts all say so as well.

Teams are going to have to change with the times or get left behind. To compete with the new type of QB, teams need super althletic defenses to catch them. Only the niners and Seahawks presently have that.

What I said was, as good as Aaron is, he will need more dynamic players around him to compete with teams like Seatttle and San Francisco. Aaron's not going to run any faster and transform into a running QB, and Green Bay deosnt need him to be. But he does need help.

The landscape of the NFL has changed in 2 seasons since the Super Bowl. We have to evolve with it.Be a traditionalist, and we will be one and out of the playoffs for a long time and not sniff the Super Bowl.That's where we are all disagreeing,

Time will tell.

Ah, I get you now. Personally, I think after a couple years defenses WILL adapt to this style of offense. Whether we can win it all in the interim or not depends more on our defense than offense, IMO. If a large portion of the league changed their offenses to closer resemble the niners and redskins, wouldn't it be BENEFITIAL to have something different, so that defenses aren't practicing against similar style offenses every week during games?

Anyhow, time will tell indeed. I'd be full of myself and lying if I said that I thought I had any better idea than you how things will turn out in the next half decade or so.

Ah, I get you now. Personally, I think after a couple years defenses WILL adapt to this style of offense. Whether we can win it all in the interim or not depends more on our defense than offense, IMO. If a large portion of the league changed their offenses to closer resemble the niners and redskins, wouldn't it be BENEFITIAL to have something different, so that defenses aren't practicing against similar style offenses every week during games?

Anyhow, time will tell indeed. I'd be full of myself and lying if I said that I thought I had any better idea than you how things will turn out in the next half decade or so.

Defenses always adjust to everything (well, at least the good ones). That's how the NFL works. Someone comes up with a new scheme, and teams work to try to find a way to solve it. It may take awhile, or it may not, that really just depends on coaching, schemes, and as always and most importantly, talent. The read option probably will be around in some form for the long-term, probably just like most teams run some variation of West Coast, etc. The main question is, how effective it will be in the long run. Guys like RG3, Russell Wilson, and even Colin Kap are very rare, and even those guys need many pieces around them to make it work. For every one RG3, there will be 20 Joe Webb's. Of course it's incredibly hard to stop a truly gifted athlete on an elite team that is very well coached. That will always be the case, regardless of the specific schemes used to run the plays. It's all an equilibrium in the NFL, as in nature. Less talented and poorer coached teams will usually lose to the better talented and coached team. One of the most talented 'new-aged' QB's in Cam Newton has yet to have a winning season, despite being more talented than Colin Kap. or Russell Wilson. The biggest difference between those teams is defense and coaching, imo.

Defenses always adjust to everything (well, at least the good ones). That's how the NFL works. Someone comes up with a new scheme, and teams work to try to find a way to solve it. It may take awhile, or it may not, that really just depends on coaching, schemes, and as always and most importantly, talent. The read option probably will be around in some form for the long-term, probably just like most teams run some variation of West Coast, etc. The main question is, how effective it will be in the long run. Guys like RG3, Russell Wilson, and even Colin Kap are very rare, and even those guys need many pieces around them to make it work. For every one RG3, there will be 20 Joe Webb's. Of course it's incredibly hard to stop a truly gifted athlete on an elite team that is very well coached. That will always be the case, regardless of the specific schemes used to run the plays. It's all an equilibrium in the NFL, as in nature. Less talented and poorer coached teams will usually lose to the better talented and coached team. One of the most talented 'new-aged' QB's in Cam Newton has yet to have a winning season, despite being more talented than Colin Kap. or Russell Wilson. The biggest difference between those teams is defense and coaching, imo.

Cam is NOT more talented than Russell Wilson, Kapernick, or RG3. There is a reason I left him out of this conversation for dynamic quarterbacks.

Newton is NOT a cerebral quarterback. He is a bigger stronger, slightly slower Michael Vick. He runs a very simplistic offense in Carolina, and it's the only one he is able to comprehend.The reason they don't win is because that offense doesn't work in the NFL. He puts up big numbers mainly after the team has lost the game or they are in a losing season and other teams have dialed it down when they play them.

Carolina is a mess and Newton has plateaued. He can't even "peak" because he doesn't really improve.

The three I mentioned are all winning. They all can process information and read defenses and exploit weaknesses., Kapernick outplayed Rodgers, AND Brady. Keep that in mind.

I would argue that Kaepernick is the most talented, not Newton.

Defenses figure things out yes. The point we should focus on is that really physical teams have figured out the packers. The giants and 49ers will probably not lose to the packers in the near future. I would argue the same will go for Seattle. To beat the top tier teams, Green Bay will need to complement Aaron's greatness with some elite athletes, That needs to happen way before defenses figure out how to stop the read option.

Cam is NOT more talented than Russell Wilson, Kapernick, or RG3. There is a reason I left him out of this conversation for dynamic quarterbacks.

Newton is NOT a cerebral quarterback. He is a bigger stronger, slightly slower Michael Vick. He runs a very simplistic offense in Carolina, and it's the only one he is able to comprehend.The reason they don't win is because that offense doesn't work in the NFL. He puts up big numbers mainly after the team has lost the game or they are in a losing season and other teams have dialed it down when they play them.

Carolina is a mess and Newton has plateaued. He can't even "peak" because he doesn't really improve.

The three I mentioned are all winning. They all can process information and read defenses and exploit weaknesses., Kapernick outplayed Rodgers, AND Brady. Keep that in mind.

I would argue that Kaepernick is the most talented, not Newton.

Defenses figure things out yes. The point we should focus on is that really physical teams have figured out the packers. The giants and 49ers will probably not lose to the packers in the near future. I would argue the same will go for Seattle. To beat the top tier teams, Green Bay will need to complement Aaron's greatness with some elite athletes, That needs to happen way before defenses figure out how to stop the read option.

I agree that Cam Newton isn't as intelligent as Russell Wilson. He is, however, more athletic, unquestionably. Bigger, stronger, as fast or faster. As Tom Brady has shown and continues to do so, the mental aspect of the game often matters most. But there is no denying that the other pieces around Newton can't even be compared to that of Seattle of the 49'ers. The Panthers defense is pathetic. They have some pieces on offense, but they pay three very talented RBs a ton of money and hardly use them. The coaching has been fairly pathetic, as well. As Pack93z always says, it's important to not over inflate the QB position. There is so many other factors that go into it, and that is especially the case with the 49'ers and Seahawks. As good as the QBs on those two teams have played, the rest of the team has played as good or better.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy into the direct "Colin Kaepernick outplayed so-and-so" cliches. On a team like the 49'ers, that's just so bogus, and insulting to the rest of the team. I can almost guarantee Rodgers would play much better against the Packers defense rather than the 49'ers, as well, especially with their offensive line. QB's don't play each other, they play opposing defenses.

Kaepernick may be overall more talented than Newton, but how successful would he be on the Carolina Panthers roster and with their coaches? Jim Harbaugh always seems to get the most out of his QBs. Again, there are so many variables it's just not a comparison I buy into. Is he playing much better in one half of a season and one playoff game? Yes. Cam Newton actually played very well his rookie year too, but just like Aaron Rodgers in 2009, his defense often let him down. One cannot deny some of the amazing games Cam played his rookie year in which he did more than his share to win, but still came up with a loss. With that being said, I live in North Carolina and almost everyone was sure that Cam Newton was the next elite QB. I maintained my skepticism because I needed to see more than a full season of solid play from him to be a believer. The same applies to any other young QB as well. Although the defenses of Seattle and San Fran. would keep many QBs competitive, to be fair. I have no doubt Cam Newton would be very successful as the QB of the 49'ers.

Additionally, I just feel like some are putting too much emphasis in a handful of games by Kaepernick. I 'do science' for a living, so I simply have to have a substantial data set to make definitive statements. I believe he is playing like a really good QB on an even better team. Beyond that, I'm just not comfortable saying anything else at this point, as it's only conjecture beyond that. It's fine to do so, I suppose, it's just I and many others will need to see more. But unquestionably, the 49'ers will be competitive with either Kaepernick or Alex Smith at QB. Alex Smith was one of the highest rated QBs in the league for the first part of the season. They are running a great system in San Francisco, from top to bottom. It's impressive, and goes far beyond the QB, imo.

I agree that Cam Newton isn't as intelligent as Russell Wilson. He is, however, more athletic, unquestionably. Bigger, stronger, as fast or faster. As Tom Brady has shown and continues to do so, the mental aspect of the game often matters most. But there is no denying that the other pieces around Newton can't even be compared to that of Seattle of the 49'ers. The Panthers defense is pathetic. They have some pieces on offense, but they pay three very talented RBs a ton of money and hardly use them. The coaching has been fairly pathetic, as well. As Pack93z always says, it's important to not over inflate the QB position. There is so many other factors that go into it, and that is especially the case with the 49'ers and Seahawks. As good as the QBs on those two teams have played, the rest of the team has played as good or better.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy into the direct "Colin Kaepernick outplayed so-and-so" cliches. On a team like the 49'ers, that's just so bogus, and insulting to the rest of the team. I can almost guarantee Rodgers would play much better against the Packers defense rather than the 49'ers, as well, especially with their offensive line. QB's don't play each other, they play opposing defenses.

Kaepernick may be overall more talented than Newton, but how successful would he be on the Carolina Panthers roster and with their coaches? Jim Harbaugh always seems to get the most out of his QBs. Again, there are so many variables it's just not a comparison I buy into. Is he playing much better in one half of a season and one playoff game? Yes. Cam Newton actually played very well his rookie year too, but just like Aaron Rodgers in 2009, his defense often let him down. One cannot deny some of the amazing games Cam played his rookie year in which he did more than his share to win, but still came up with a loss. With that being said, I live in North Carolina and almost everyone was sure that Cam Newton was the next elite QB. I maintained my skepticism because I needed to see more than a full season of solid play from him to be a believer. The same applies to any other young QB as well. Although the defenses of Seattle and San Fran. would keep many QBs competitive, to be fair. I have no doubt Cam Newton would be very successful as the QB of the 49'ers.

Additionally, I just feel like some are putting too much emphasis in a handful of games by Kaepernick. I 'do science' for a living, so I simply have to have a substantial data set to make definitive statements. I believe he is playing like a really good QB on an even better team. Beyond that, I'm just not comfortable saying anything else at this point, as it's only conjecture beyond that. It's fine to do so, I suppose, it's just I and many others will need to see more. But unquestionably, the 49'ers will be competitive with either Kaepernick or Alex Smith at QB. Alex Smith was one of the highest rated QBs in the league for the first part of the season. They are running a great system in San Francisco, from top to bottom. It's impressive, and goes far beyond the QB, imo.

Harbuagh switched to Kaepernick because he knew that smith could only take the team so far with his limitations. Yes, they won with Smith, but like you said, he has a better situation than Newton. You cannot directly compare QBs because of all the factors, but as some point you have to consider them as a direct factor in their success, not just their team. Brett Farve would've struggled on a bad team as well. But that doesn't mean that the converse is guaranteed. I don't believe newton would be as successful as Kaepernick if he was on the 49ers.

Harbuagh switched to Kaepernick because he knew that smith could only take the team so far with his limitations. Yes, they won with Smith, but like you said, he has a better situation than Newton. You cannot directly compare QBs because of all the factors, but as some point you have to consider them as a direct factor in their success, not just their team. Brett Farve would've struggled on a bad team as well. But that doesn't mean that the converse is guaranteed. I don't believe newton would be as successful as Kaepernick if he was on the 49ers.

Of course QBs are strongly correlated to a teams success. That's a given. This is especially true on some teams more than others though. For example the Packers are QB centric. They depend on their QB far too much, imo, and fail to give him enough help both in terms of coaching and play-calling, and defense. Teams like Seattle and 49'ers are built much differently though. They are both built as true teams, meaning that every player contributes significantly to their success, including the QB, but they just aren't as QB-centric as a team like the Packers, the Colts under Manning, the Patriots, etc. Even if Alex Smith was still the starter, the 49'ers would likely be competing for a Super Bowl, despite his limitations, because of the way the team plays the game. I still think they should have been in the Super Bowl last year if not for two unbelievable special teams blunders. Kaepernick may be and very likely is more talented than Alex Smith, but the achievements of the rest of the team cannot be minimized, is my bigger point.

So yeah, any QB has a lot to do with the success of a team, but some more so than others. Some teams can have great success with only average to slightly above average QB play while others certainly cannot.

If you all saw the Atlanta-49ers game, you could see that this dynamic QB thing is not a gimmick and is not going away.

Kaepernick beat the Falcons with his arm and not his legs.The threat of his running forced the Falcons front 7 to defend the outside lanes,and that opened up the middle for the niners running backs.

Again, defenses cannot account for ALL of it.They can "contain" a running QB in the read option, but ifthat QB can also throw, then there's not really anything theycan do. Baltimore is in some serious trouble.

As for the Packers, Aaron doesn't scare defenses to defend the outside running lanes.

He scares them with his passing ability. But if we don't have a dynamic running back to scare defenses, then we will continue to beone dimensional.

Aaron is the best passing QB in the league.

The league in the future will have the best passing QB in the leaguewho can run. That future is in front of us and is playing in the Superbowl right now.

We need a dynamic running back to keep pace and compete, or we won't sniff the superbowl again.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.